“This Saturday, Pottawatamie County and Homeland Security are conducting an exercise with the Treynor, IA (Iowa) Community Schools and will simulate a school shooting. The premise of the mock shooting has been changed to suggest that a student, whose parents oppose illegal immigration comes to school with a gun and shoots a Latino Student.

This was sent to Joan and Michael Becker, whose child was sent home with a permission slip to participate.

From Pottawattamie County Emergency Management Agency Homeland Security Exercise & Evaluation Program (HSEEP) CLICK FOR PDF HERE” [Note: DHS may remove this site under pressure. If you want a copy, please email me. I have saved it in case. Don Hank]

…[deletia]…

There has NEVER been an incident such as the one they are manufacturing here in the State of Iowa or any other for that matter. This is highly politically motivated, racially inflammatory, and completely egregious.

What message does this send to those students and families in that school district? It very powerfully suggests that any student with parents that have a certain viewpoint are racist and dangerous. It is completely politically motivated, unbelievable egregious and has no place in any school.

…[deletia]…

Please call as many reporters, radio, TV and newspaper personalities and web sites as you can. Please forward this to your mailing lists as well! Here are some of the Contacts;

My motive was to verify that the email was truthful (it was) and that the school was indeed participating, and also to rebuke the school for its participation in this bold-faced propaganda exercise.

Kevin sent a brief polite email stating that the school was involved only in the drill, not the message stating that the fictitious mock attackers are supposedly motivated by sentiment against illegal aliens.

This is not true, because the Homeland Security message reflected in the pdf file regarding the simulated attack by fictitious violent radicals (a concept invented by Homeland Security) opposed to illegal immigration was sent by the school to parents, who then sent out an email alert.

Content of my second email (response) to Supervisor Kevin Elwood:

Thank you for sending your standard response to my concerns regarding the exercise scheduled to take place at your school.

Actually, your school sent to parents a permission slip for a mock attack exercise supposedly involving violent radicals motivated by opposition to illegal immigration, so your denial that you are involved in disseminating the preliminary message about a fictitious family using violence to oppose illegal immigration is disingenuous.

The problem is: many of us saw a pdf file (CLICK FOR PDF HERE) from Homeland Security that explained the background for this exercise, and we are certain that you too saw this and should have objected to it, for the following obvious reason.

The Homeland Security message to parents ignores

1- that the term illegal means illegal for millions of people, not because they are racists. Many Hispanics, fearing for their lives and safety, pray every night that Homeland Security will halt the flow of drugs, crime, and gangs into our country so their kids can be safe. Many others realize that a lot of non-Mexicans flow into our country every year and there are terrorists in that group. Instead of sincerely addressing these concerns, Homeland Security obfuscates with propaganda efforts of the kind you participate in in an effort to throw the blame for their failure back on Americans.

2- that the vast majority of terrorist attacks in America are from Islamists motivated by a combination of hate and religious fervor. To stage a mock attack on the premise that terror can be expected from another group is deceitful. To suggest that the danger comes from those opposed to Homeland Security because it refuses to address and counter this typical kind of terror is obviously a means of providing cover for a do-nothing agency that endangers Americans with its irresponsibility.

There is a clear suggestion in the letter introducing the exercise that people who dare to oppose a government policy are violent and that good people are supposed to just sit back and let people violate our immigration laws, pretending that illegal does not mean illegal. If Homeland Security can make a solid case for its denial that illegal is illegal, and can justify its refusal to do its job, then it should do so by publishing its reasons for this, backed up by scientific facts and conclusions directed at the American people, rather than staging an exercise absurdly portraying people who object to illegal immigration (and hence to the reckless inaction of Homeland Security) as violent fanatics and racists.

Unfortunately, Homeland Security has been highly politicized in recent years and is tending to polarize Americans, making us suspicious and fearful of those who, like myself, believe in the notion that illegal means illegal, a disarmingly basic notion that Homeland Security, derspite its smoke and mirrors, has never succeeded in overcoming intellectually or rationally – while continuing to irrationally act as if the opposite notion (i.e. that illegal does not mean illegal) were a given. Instead, the agency seems to want to emotionalize the issue without ever explaining why all Americans should accept what can only be described as an invasion. The drill at your school and the accompanying literature to the parents is more of a propaganda move than an exercise to keep people safe. And your school is shamefully lending itself to this outrageous, grossly unfair propaganda action.

If Homeland Security wanted to keep people safe, it would do exactly what Mexico, for example, does: Penalize those who enter their territory illegally and stop the flow or slow it to a trickle. Instead, it propagandizes to support its own unacceptable delinquency and make Americans fearful to oppose it, lest they be seen as potentially violent radicals and racists. Actually, Homeland Security’s policy in defense of open borders and tacit acceptance of illegal immigration (returning only the most violent of criminals among the illegal aliens) is radical and dangerous, not the position of millions of Americans who want the agency to do its job.

Your exercise is part of this propaganda activity and your response does not explain why you are willing to lend your school to this propaganda effort that portrays those opposed to foreign invasion as potentially violent rather than explaining to us why you all feel that way about ordinary Americans who pay your salary.

So please try again. Tell us why you want to be part of this vicious and unfair propaganda effort to belittle millions of non-violent Americans who just want to be safe behind protected borders.

[END]

I would encourage as many of you as possible to write a brief email, detailing your objections to their planned propaganda effort, to Superintendant Kevin Elwood at

Let Mr. Elwood know that by sending out the message to parents detailing the nature of the fictitious attackers as people opposed to illegal immigration, they are participating in a shameless propaganda effort to obfuscate the failure of Homeland Security to do its job and stop or significantly slow illegal immigration, and throw the blame for terror on Americans who want a safe border and an end to unlimited and illegal immigration and all the attendant ills of drugs, violent crime, gangs, and terrorism.

Thank you!

IT WORKED! THERE WILL BE NO DRILL NOW! But we’re being blamed for “threats.” There is no end to the propaganda. Now we need to contact Elwood and ask him if criticizing the government is always to be taken as a threat, just as it was in the Soviet Union and China:

I am tired of reading about innocent people being killed as a result of federal actions and policies.

I first noticed this when the Christians in Iraq started getting killed (over 50 were killed there when a church was destroyed just this week). There are now almost NO Assyrian Christians in Iraq. They had survived for over a millennium and were thriving under, of all people, Saddam Hussein. But they succumbed to the actions of a RINO president. (No, I am not a Saddam fan, but if you don’t know what the consequences will be, think twice about invading a country).

Now Obama, in his role as “President of the world,” has demanded that Mubarak step down, and lo and behold, the same thing happens in Egypt: The Coptic Christians are being slaughtered.

To some, it may seem far-fetched to observe this, but in this country, with the same stupid policies of aiding the enemy, we find 2 federal agents killed with guns apparently supplied by the good old US government, one just this week.

Like I said, I’m tired of watching good people die as part of a government experiment conducted by idiots with a rocket scientist mentality.

I don’t think any of the actions that caused these unintended consequences were constitutional.

The slow but sure Islamization of Europe, illustrated in the below-linked video, is headed this way. Dearborn Michigan is a showcase example, where Christians are forbidden to hand out tracts in many places where Muslisms would be offended.

Europe and the US are in the same basic set of hands: PLCSDs (progressives/ liberals/ communists/ socialists/ Democrats) who rule the West by controlling the media, education, film and the arts, the universities, much of the political world, etc.

The Fabian socialists started in London in the early 1880s. Karl Marx’s sister was one of them. Their avowed goal: To spread socialism and eliminate Christianity from Western culture.

How are they doing so far?

Their influence spread and spun off other like-minded groups (the Frankfurt School, the UN, the CFR, the Bilderbergs, the Trilateral Commission, the ACLU, People for the American Way, the Democrat and Socialist Parties in the US, socialist parties in Europe, Common Purpose in the UK), which spread the virus.

Their goal in Europe is being achieved in part by importing large numbers of Muslims from Africa and the Middle East to dilute the already waning Christian influence there. The result is a growing state of anarchy in the street and an untenable, often desperate social situation, for example, in many European schools, where European students are bullied mercilessly by Muslim kids.

On this side of the Atlantic, their goal is being promoted by supranational government schemes like NAFTA, the SPP (Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, and the Trans-Texas Corridor), all of which aim to obliterate borders toward the short-term goal of achieving an EU-style borderless America with a single central government that dictates to what is left of national governments (to be reduced to puppets that only harmonize central legislation). The longer-term goal is a one-world government such that no nation or region has any significant power over its own destiny.

The huge influx of illegal aliens you see all around you is part of that plan. They are portrayed as victims, ie, the “poor,” in the media but a growing percentage have ties to the cartels that have made life unlivable and short in Mexico. They are creating crime-filled ghettos in our cities in their quest for a “better way of life.”

I guarantee that the useful idiots who lend themselves to the implementation of this scheme to help illegal aliens gain increasing privileges in our nation, including — now — the right to vote in our elections, will some day rue the day they were duped into becoming pawns in this evil game.

Perhaps I should add that I live in Germany, and we see the encroaching creep of Islamism here without a doubt.

I think of a church in Reutlingen in the south of Germany, who have spoken up against the way the Lutheran Church in the town has (I use the singular intentionally) been in recent, close fellowship with the Turkish nationalistic, fascist youth organisation, the ‘Grey Wolves’, who, any search in Google will show, are murderers and assassins, and with whom even the CIA are linked. The Lutherans had allowed them on to the church board, allowed them access to their premises, church hall, etc, all ‘in the name of dialogue’ with Muslims, in order to help them to integrate into German society.

It beats me that the ‘Pfarrer’ didn’t have the wisdom to find out for himself what sort of people these are, but perhaps he in his mistaken, humanistic, naive way, thought that he could turn them from their Jihadist thinking. If so, then he was wrong. A video was made of a Grey Wolves meeting in the Lutheran church hall, presumably by one of the partaking group, with the Cross and other Christian symbols covered up, showing the Grey Wolves members saluting, (very similar to the Hitler salute, forbidden in Germany). The video was put on You Tube and caused a furore when the local press got hold of it.

The Lutheran church then accused the free church of being religious intolerant fundamentalists, and even said that they had filmed the meeting, which any common logic would make clear, was a ridiculous accusation. They then ostracised, cold-shouldered and slandered the free church. The sad thing is that other churches in town did the same, pandering to the fear of the Grey Wolves, who hold even other Muslims in terror, unwilling to take a stand for the truth. They said that the free church was destroying the town’s ‘Christian unity’. If that’s Christian unity then I’m the Pope.

According to the judges of the 9th Circuit, Arizona laws requiring potential voters to present documentation for AZ elections are “illegal.” Supposedly they discriminate against the poor who do not have driver’s licenses.

All the potential voter now has to do is swear that he is a citizen under penalty of perjury and he or she can register to vote.

But since it is illegal to prove that he is lying, this is a de facto legalization of voter fraud and the 9th Circuit knows it. So does any thinking American.

This decision is an attack on the entire legal process. If it is now illegal to ask for documentation for voter registration, then it is automatically illegal for courts to require documentation for anything at all because some are too poor to afford documents.

An applicant for a passport would not have to prove he is the person he says he is. He would only be made to sign a sworn statement that he is that person. Any attempt on the part of officials to prove he is not would be illegal. And because the government is concerned with the poor and their rights, this applicant could not be charged one penny for the passport.

All applicants would be issued passports without proof.

Youngsters would now be free to purchase liquor and cigarettes at will, simply by providing a sworn statement that they are over 21. No one could force them to produce any documentation.

Nor could a suspect be required to present documentation to prove he is who he says he is. He can deny that he is the suspect who was picked up by the police on suspicion of a crime. If they try to prove he is the suspect, he can simply sign a sworn statement that he is in fact someone else, under penalty of perjury. The prosecution would not be allowed to look for evidence to the contrary because, by the 9th Circuit’s logic, the suspect would have the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

Hence, case closed, no decision allowed.

For that matter, no criminal would ever be tried again in the USA if 9th Circuit logic were applied across the board, because by extension of this twisted logic, a suspect would need only swear he did not commit the alleged crime and would immediately be set free, no questions asked. Sorry for the annoyance, Sir.

As for banks, they have already ceased to require documentation of loan applicants, and the result is a worldwide financial and economic crisis that keeps on taking.

The 9th circuit is also in effect enforcing the notion of equality for every human being on the planet: the right of every person on earth to vote in US elections.

If this decision is allowed to stand, then citizens of other countries can argue that they are being discriminated against because they are “too poor” to travel to the US to vote in our elections.

By the logic of these judges, all human beings over a certain age can vote in US elections simply by swearing they are US citizens.

They can now go to a US embassy and vote there. By 9th Circuit logic, no US embassy official would be allowed to ask for a passport or any other proof except a sworn statement that the voter registration applicant is a US citizen.

I think you can see that Arizona must recover its sovereign right to require proof of citizenship or we are all in grave danger.

First, Arizona can and should appeal this decision and should keep the old law in place until such time as the appeal is heard. But in the event the appeal fails, the election officials and officials involved, including legislators, who have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, have several types of constitutional recourse, including the 10th Amendment. They can refuse to go along with the decision on the basis that the decision unconstitutionally interferes with the internal affairs of a state and on the basis of their oath of office.

Or if they want to preserve decorum, they can throw the decision back in the 9th Circuit’s face, declaring the old law requiring documentation upon voter registration null and void, based on the 9th Circuit decision, and replacing it with a new law that allows a sworn statement of US citizenship plus proof positive of citizenship – not just the applicant’s sworn statement – but without specifying what kind of proof. The new law could allow an applicant to use a driver’ license or birth certificate as proof but would not require that particular kind of proof. The sworn statement would not be accepted as proof positive but would be allowed, as long as proof positive were also provided. It would be up to the applicant to provide proof positive but the type of proof – in accordance with the decision – would be up to the applicant. Or in the event such a statement is mandated by federal law, it could even be required, but would not be considered as proof positive, since it obviously is not.

The law would be written as a temporary law, but without an expiration date.

The law in question would state that it would expire shortly after the court that abolished the old law provided an adequate substitute of proof positive of citizenship, whereupon a new law would be written specifying the use of that type of proof specified by the court. The court could not argue against this new law giving it the right to specify the type of proof allowed without admitting it does not allow any proof at all and in fact wants illegal aliens to have the vote.

This would elegantly throw the issue back in the laps of the justices who would now be responsible for coming up with a kind of proof that would satisfy human logic. The beauty of such a law is that, on its face, it at least seems to go on the assumption that the court is not malicious and does not have an interest in allowing undocumented aliens to vote. In fact, while it is obvious that the court is malicious and wants illegal aliens to vote, it would never dare admit this. The court could not come out and say they wanted illegal aliens to vote and hate Arizonans. They have to have something to hide behind, and this decision lets them hide behind the poor.

Such a new “temporary” replacement law in Arizona would on the surface satisfy the letter of the law but would also put the onus on the court to decide the nature of the proof positive that must be provided by voter registration applicants.

The court certainly could not say that a sworn declaration of citizenship provides such proof because Arizona would then point out that such sworn declarations are not seen as proof of anything in other areas of law, such as criminal and commercial law.

If the court kept up the farce despite this revision of the law, Arizona could argue that a sworn statement is not accepted as proof of anything in other areas of law and that the court must provide an alternative that satisfies human logic as to what proof positive actually is. The court would have to admit that it is mililtating against all human logic and then Arizona would have an airtight motive for ignoring the decision. The fact is, it already does, but such a strategy as I have proposed would catapult the issue into the media in such a way that other states would be encouraged to rebel in like manner. People are on the verge of rebelling anyway, and Arizona could be the fuse that sets off the charge.

If all of the above happens to fail, natural laws will intervene as they always do, but the result may not be pretty.

By way of illustration, the irresponsible behavior of the banks and their public partners Fanny-Freddy and insane legislation like the CRA, inevitably resulted in a financial meltdown with universal consequences. More and more people are noticing this, including people outside the US (The NGO Transparency International recently found the US to be perceived as a significantly more corrupt nation than previously). The exact consequences of wholesale voting by non-Americans are hard to imagine or predict.

But eventually, the court’s decision to eliminate the requirement for documentation will affect us all, including the progressives responsible for the decision, because it eliminates almost all authority over anyone, including criminals, thereby undermining the authority of the very court itself. Anarchy is the inevitable result.

The SAVE Act will never pass and for good reason–it doesn’t go far enough and gives a false sense of having supposedly halted the Invasion from Mexico. Arizona’s 1070 Law (which is being contemplated by 22 other states) goes much farther and has made the SAVE Act obsolete before it becomes law, if ever.

If supporters believe what they read from the left-leaning Pew or the anti-enforcement DHS reports, they are delusional. They are not to be believed and are based on anecdotal evidence, not empirical evidence. BP boots on the ground will tell you that along the 2,200-mile Southern Border, between 5,000 and 10,000 illegals break into the U.S. every 24 hours. While the break-ins may have dropped to the 5,000 per day level, that is still 1.5 million illegals breaking in per year NOT including the 40-50% of all visa holders who overstay and are not tracked down and deported. We’re letting in close to 2 million legal aliens per year, an unheard of amount in the Western world. That’s at least 800,000 overstayer illegal aliens you can add to the 1.5 million (min.) Border jumper illegals.

The SAVE Act is what I term “a feel good act”. Here’s what it does and doesn’t do:

-Leaves out “for all employees, both Current and New” from the E-verify mandatory change that is proposed. What about the 8 million-plus illegals earning a paycheck? Why are they being left alone? I’ll tell you why–the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

-Doesn’t remove the word “knowingly” from Federal Immigration law. The entire “enforcement against criminal employers” is a waste of taxpayer money and time as only a handful of employers have been prosecuted and convicted. Why? The word “knowingly”. It is virtually impossible to prove “intent” and get convictions! So prosecutors, rather than risk losing millions of dollars in litigation, don’t even bother with indictments against employers. This is THE biggest loophole for employers of illegals in the U.S.

-Doesn’t require or guarantee more ICE raids like the ones under Bush in 2005 in Ontario and Temecula, CA involving the BP or the ones post-2006-2008 by ICE. Simply hiring more agents won’t guarantee anything. To track down the MILLIONS of visa overstayer illegals, we’d need a hundred thousand ICE agents! Immigration expert Michael Cutler says there are only 200 or so ICE agents being used on overstayers for the entire country. Obama halted all raids against business hiring non-criminal illegal aliens in 2009.

-Doesn’t require that BP agents be stationed ON THE BORDER! Due to the Drug Cartel’s move into Arizona and due to the dangerous situation with the Zetas along the Border, the BP has been told to move BACK and allow break-ins to occur for the agent’s safety. This is insane! A border is supposed to be defended! If it isn’t being defended, for whatever reason, then troops must be used to defend it.

-The “pilot program” is unnecessary and a waste of taxpayer’s money.

-Doesn’t increase funding for 287.g, a highly successful program training local police and sheriff’s deputies.

-Doesn’t get rid of the EOIR as recommended by vdare’s Juan Mann. As Mann wrote, “The lengthy EOIR system of hearings and appeals enables illegal aliens and criminal alien residents to remain in the United States both legally and illegally.” Hiring more judges isn’t the solution but only part of that solution.

There are others, but these prove to me that the SAVE Act should be called “The False Sense Of Security Act”. And one other thing. The advent of 1070 has made the SAVE Act a dinosaur in its own time.